I don’t think the superintendent understands the reality of children bringing phones to school. Middle school students are watching pornography on their phones. Children are cyberbullying each other via text. And some children have an application installed on their phones to get around a school’s “secure” server. The school board should do its homework.

How would allowing elementary school children to bring cellphones to school lower costs, close the achievement gap or help kids focus? The teachers would have one more distraction to deal with. Who asked for this?

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Dr. Raymond Richard Neutra,MD, PhD., MPH is a former public health official with the California State Health Department who offers health and safety advice to teenagers and young children about safer use of cellular phones. Watch the Video on Youtube.

Thousands of Doctors recommend that children reduce exposure to cell phones and wireless.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

13 Investigates cellphones and cancer: Is the risk real?

"What we found here is fairly clear evidence of a signal," said Dr. David McCormick, director of the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, where the federal government conducted its RF study that cost nearly $30 million.

During the 10-year research project, mice and rats were exposed to RF radiation designed to mimic human exposure based on the radio frequencies and modulations used in the United States. Some of the male rats developed cancerous brain tumors, as well as a rare, malignant tumor known as a schwannoma of the heart.

"What we are saying here is that based on the animal studies, there is a possible risk cellphone RF is potentially carcinogenic in humans," McCormick explained to WTHR at his laboratory on the south side of Chicago. "These are uncommon lesions in rodents, so it is our conclusion that they are exposure related."

"That's correct," McCormick said. "At this point, do we have unequivocal evidence that says cellphone RF radiation is carcinogenic? In humans, no. In rats, I think the answer to that is ‘yes.' For us, that is a signal, and it means there is a question mark out there.

Nobody is proposing that cell phones be banned. Nor does anyone propose the elimination of
the Universal Service program or other radical reforms. But there are some steps—and most are
modest—that the FCC can take now to right some of the wrongs that result from long years of
inordinate industry access and influence:

Acknowledge that there may be health risks in wireless communications. Take down the
dismissive language. Maturely and independently discuss the research and ongoing debate on the
safety of this technology.

In recognition of this scientific uncertainty, adopt a precautionary view on use of wireless
technology. Require prominent point-of-sale notices suggesting that users who want to reduce
health risks can adopt a variety of measures, including headphones, more limited usage and
storage away from at-risk body parts.

Back off the promotion of Wi-Fi. As Professor Lennart Hardell has noted, there are wired
alternatives that do not expose children to wireless risk.

Petition Congress for the budgetary additions needed to expand testing of emissions on
antenna sites. It was Congress after all that gave industry carte blanche for tower expansion so
long as they comply with FCC standards. But there is evidence of vast non-compliance and
Congress needs to ensure that tower infrastructure is operating within the law.

Acknowledge that children and pregnant women may be more vulnerable to the effects of
RF emissions and require special protection.

Promote cable debundling as a way to lighten consumer cable bills, especially for those
customers who don‘t care about high-cost sports programming.

Apply more rigorous analysis to properly assess the value of technology in education.
Evidence continues to pile up that technology in education is not as valuable as tech companies
claim. Pay less attention to tech CEOs—pay more attention to the researchers who‘ve actually
studied the impact of trendy technology fixes on learning

Take over enforcement of personal privacy rights on the Internet. Of all the basic
suggestions here, this would require the most courage as it would involve challenging many of
the entrenched powers of the Internet.

Candidates for Board of Education responded to Dr. Powells inquiry about their interest in "curbing the mandatory irradiation of our children in the MCPS schools." October 28, 2016 Letter from Ronald Powell PhD

Dear Colleagues,

Please share this message with anyone you wish who lives in Montgomery County, Maryland.

You may know that the current policy of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is that all students must submit to mandatory irradiation by the radiofrequency/microwave radiation emitted by Wi-Fi, wireless laptop computers, cell phones, and cell towers if present on school grounds, throughout their many years of schooling, or forfeit their right to a free public education. As far as I can tell, this mandate applies to Special Needs Children as well as to other children. Also, teachers and staff at the schools must submit to such irradiation to work in the schools.

However, the international biomedical research community has shown that such radiation is harmful to health in multiple ways. But the MCPS managers have ignored the extensive evidence of this fact, despite the pleas from concerned parents and the written solicitations from leading scientists around the world to stop the irradiation.

We have a chance to change this tragic state at the upcoming General Election on November 8. In that election, three of the eight seats on the Montgomery County Board of Education will be filled, providing an opportunity to elect new members who are sensitive to the concerns about the impact of such mandatory irradiation on the health of our children, and who will bring those concerns before the Board. (The other five members are serving terms that extend beyond this General Election and thus will continue as members.)

For each of the three seats for which candidates are being considered, two individuals are competing. Here are the three seats and the candidates competing for each one, as they appear on the ballot for all registered voters of Montgomery County, Maryland. Shown also are their responses to my inquiry about their interest in curbing the mandatory irradiation of our children in the MCPS schools. My inquiry was made either at the time of the Primary Election or just recently:

Candidates for Board of Education - One "At Large" seat

Jeanette Dixon - Responded with interest about the mandatory irradiation of our children. Ms. Dixon provided the response given below at the time of the Primary Election and granted her permission then to quote that response:

"Dear Dr. Powell---thank you for sending this information along and educating me on the urgency of this issue not just in MCPS but all over. As a 16 year breast cancer survivor I am concerned about carcinogens and anything that would put the health of others, especially our students and staff at risk. I think we can fund our technology initiative so that our students can have the skills they need to be competitive in the 21st century but we can and should do so in a manner that does not put their health at risk. If I am elected to the BOE I will bring up, and seek to educate the larger MCPS community and work towards the replacement of the wireless wifi systems in MCPS. It seems to me this is a no brainer. You should know that when I say I will do something I follow through.

Best regards,

Jeanette"

Phil Kauffman - Did not respond. He is the incumbent.

Candidates for Board of Education - District 2

Brandon Orman Rippeon - Responded with interest about the mandatory irradiation of our children. Mr. Rippeon provided the response given below, which is quoted here with his permission:

"Good morning Ronald.

I agree with your position. This is a topic I too have been concerned with for many years. There are also cell phone towers placed at MCPS locations (the leases on these towers are a big revenue source for MCPS and another example of the school system putting dollars before the health of the students).

If elected I would work to institute the necessary changes to protect students' health.

Yours,

-br"

Rebecca Smondrowski - Did not respond. She is the incumbent.

Candidates for Board of Education - District 4

Shebra Evans - Did not respond.

Anjali Reed Phukan - Responded with interest about the mandatory irradiation of our children. Mr. Phukan provided the response given below, which is quoted here with her permission:

"I completely agree with you.I will vote conservative, but I think the solution others will go for will be having some wi-fi free schools where kids with relevent diagnosis or doctor vouchers be allowed to attend. Maybe even voucher schools.WiFi is everywhere, even my house and I don't even have TV, cable, internet, or phones (the electric company uses it for the thermostat for energy savings days and such).I will vote no on cell phone towers on MCPS property for sure."

Summary

In summary, Jeanette Dixon, Brandon Orman Rippeon, and Anjali ("Anj") Reed Phukan responded with interest about addressing one or another of the aspects of the mandatory exposure of our children to radiofrequency/microwave radiation from the wireless technologies used in our schools. If elected, they will all be new members of the Board of Education.

The other three candidates did not respond to my inquiries. Two of the three who did not respond are incumbents: Phil Kaufman ("At Large") and Rebecca Smondrowski (District 2).

The views of all of the six candidates on the ballot about a variety of other issues relating to our schools may be important to your choice. Please see pages 18-20 of the League of Women Voters' Guide for questions posed by the League and the responses provided by the six candidates:

Each of the five members associated with a given district must live within the district that he or she represents. The seats occupied by members from District 2 and District 4 will be addressed in the upcoming election.

The Board also has two members that represent the entire County. They are the "At Large" members. One of the "At Large" seats will be addressed in the upcoming election.

Finally, the Board has one student member. That seat will not be addressed in the upcoming election.

All Board members are elected by all registered voters living in Montgomery County. That is why all registered voters in Montgomery County will be voting for the members for District 2, District 4, and the one "At Large" seat in the upcoming election.

Documentation of the health risks of the wireless technologies used in the Montgomery County Public Schools

Monday, October 24, 2016

Given the lack of scientific consensus on the potential health risks from these sources, attention is often focused at minimizing exposure. Below are common recommendations and include those for both cell phone and non-cell phone sources:

Use wired communication devices instead of wireless devices

Consider a wired Local Area Network (LAN) instead of wireless, and wired connections to computers and other individual devices.

Use a wired landline instead of a cell phone for everyday calls

Limit children’s use of cell phones except for emergencies

Don’t offer the phone as a toy.

If your children use a phone to play games, switch on airplane mode. A phone in airplane mode will stop RF (radio frequency) transmission but still have some magnetic field exposure.

Keep cell phones and other sources at a distance

The strength of the RF emission or exposure is one fourth lower at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet.

Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a plug-in headset rather than holding a phone to your ear.

A wireless “Bluetooth” headset can have less exposure than a cell phone, though data seem inconsistent on how much less exposure.

While on a call, keep the phone away from your body (e.g., on a table in front of you instead of your pocket).

If using wireless devices like computers, laptops, tablets, and printers, place the wireless router away from where children and adults usually spend time.

Store your cell phone and other devices like routers away from your body.

Don’t store your phone under your pillow or clipped on your belt, especially if you are pregnant.

Switch the phone to “airplane” or “off-line” mode when not using for communication such as for some other function like as an alarm clock. Power phones 100% off before you carry them near your body to avoid all exposure.

Turn off routers when wireless devices are not in use.

Text when possible

Texting emits less radiation than voice calls.

Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train.

These types of use automatically increase power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna. Radiation levels are significantly higher when your signal is poor.

I am writing with regards to the recent FCC ruling to release next generation 5G technology and networks which would soon create an explosion of new untested microwave radiation that will be widespread in our environment with likely dire consequences. I strongly disagree with this decision and strongly recommend postponing any rollout of new telecommunications frequencies until adequate studies have been done and the entire issue of reevaluating the FCC safety standards to include not just thermal but biological and health effects has been agreed to.

I also believe the Environmental Protection Agency or other independent scientific panel needs to have authority to look at all telecommunications safety issues for non-ionizing radiation including long term and biological effects for all spectrums. This would mean repealing portions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to allow health monitoring, research and open discussion with regards to all telecommunications frequencies.

As a physician who has worked on a wide range of public health, environmental health and toxics issues for over 25 years I believe the rollout of 5G is not only premature but also dangerous to both humans and the environment.

As you know the FCC considers safe any microwave radiation that does not burn the skin or cause acute thermal damage. Until 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency had the jurisdiction to research and propose guidelines for chronic exposure to the non-ionizing radiation from cell phones, cell towers and other EMF devices until this responsibility was removed.

As you also know the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifically exempts cell towers from environmental review, review of health effects or monitoring for such in the construction or placement of cell towers. The FCC to my knowledge does not have any physicians, biologists, scientists in EMF on their staff. They depend on other input for their decisions but to date have not considered the overwhelming evidence of harm by our modern telecommunications device that are in increasingly in our workplaces, schools and homes.

For decades people did not understand that non-ionizing radiation could be harmful. The accumulated science of harm from wireless microwave radiation however has confirmed adverse biological and clinical effects. The biological and cellular effects include damage to DNA and mitochondria, stress protein synthesis, cellular damage to neurons, immune dysfunction, creation of reactive oxygen species, reduced melatonin, alternation of nerve cell junction.

Studies have linked similar microwave EMF from cell phones, cell towers, Wi Fi routers to cancer, endocrine disruption and reproductive harm. Science is not perfect but the weight of evidence including clinical studies of electrohypersensitivity has now confirmed there is no doubt of harm from wireless EMF radiation.

The most recent and compelling evidence has come from the 2016 National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program. Called the NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Cell Phone Radiation Study, the 10 year $25 million research has shown conclusively that there was a harmful effect from cell phone microwave radiation. This is similar to other wireless devices we commonly use. The studies were robust, collaborative, well controlled and with double the number of rats required to be significant. The preliminary results of the study showed that RFR caused a statistically significant increase in two types of brain tumors, gliomas and schwannomas. These were the same two types of tumors shown to increase in human epidemiological studies.
Ron Melnik, PhD, Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and designer of the study states,

“The NTP tested the hypothesis that cell phone radiation could not cause health effects and that hypothesis has now been disproved. The experiment has been done and, after extensive reviews, the consensus is that there was a carcinogenic effect.”

It is notable that this study does not address the chronic health effects to the reproductive organs and immune system seen in many other studies.

Considering the widespread use and exposure to wireless technology the evidence points to a major emerging public health issue.

Mammalian cells signal through very weak electromagnetic fields which trigger binding of hormones, antibodies and neurotransmitters to their specific binding sites. Calcium channels are also involved in this (Adley 1993). As one could imagine, after review of physiologic and biologic systems, even low level non-ionizing radiation could cause havoc in mitochondria where energy is transformed and stored, in DNA or on fragile signaling proteins required for functioning of our very complex systems. Indeed studies have shown adverse effects at levels well below current FCC standards.

Biology will always be more complicated than technology. Our bodies can be put in harms way by a variety of toxins and this includes non-ionizing microwave radiation from wireless devices.

We know how convenient out wireless devices are. Like cigarettes safety was questioned for decades until enough science could show harm. We are in the same situation with wireless technology. We have the science in front of us. We must now stop further increases in exposures of non-ionizing radiation from telecommunications (especially those untested), begin to reduce EMF exposure- especially to vulnerable and sensitive populations and put our focus on individual and population safety. Convenience should not take precedence over public health.

The School Committee plans to continue wading into the controversial topic of the potential health effect of wireless internet in schools, despite some hesitance from a few members.

Brian O’Connell, chairman of the committee’s Teaching, Learning and Student Supports Standing Committee, said Thursday night that the committee, at its meeting Monday, agreed to a number of motions concerning “radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation,” including asking the district to consider expanding wired internet instead of wireless where possible in buildings, provide instructions on how to turn off wireless internet, and post on the schools’ website two documents dealing with WiFi safety.

The standing committee took up the issue after hearing concerns from local residents, and will continue, at its next meeting, in December, to look into measures the district could take.

Dozens of schools across the Chicago area are leasing their property to telecom companies to erect cellular towers and antennas on school buildings and grounds, NBC5 Investigates has discovered. Until now, radiation from cell towers has not been considered a risk to children, but a recent study raises new questions about possible long-term, harmful effects. Phil Rogers reports. (Published Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016)

NBC5 Investigates filed Freedom of Information Act requests with 409 public school districts across the Chicago area, and found that 139 local schools rent space on their grounds, buildings and smokestacks for cellular antennas. Over 90 of those are Chicago Public Schools – most of them elementary-level -- where kids may attend for as many as nine years. CPS reaps about $5 million in rental fees from those towers every year.

“Our kids are sitting in these classrooms for seven hours a day for nine years, 180 days every school year,” he notes. “Nobody knows what happens if you get a very low dose for nine years.”

The Beverly parents were especially alarmed by news of a recent study from the National Toxicology Program, which seemed to show a direct link between cell phone RF and cancer. Fagan said no parent would allow a Starbucks to be located in the school offering free coffee, if it would mean constant exposure to caffeine.

“Parents would descend on that school with torches and pitchforks,” he said. “I don’t know why microwave radiation gets a free pass when there’s way more evidence to support that it causes disease than caffeine does.”

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Nation's largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer.

In response to the U.S. National Toxicology Program study results finding exposure to wireless radiation significantly increased the prevalence of highly malignant heart and brain cancers in rodents, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued specific recommendations to reduce wireless cell phone exposure and updated their online resources for parents concerning cell phones and wireless devices.

“They’re not toys. They have radiation that is emitted from them and the more we can keep it off the body and use (the phone) in other ways, it will be safer,” said Jennifer A. Lowry, M.D., FAACT, FAAP, chair of the AAP Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee in the AAPs press release on the NTP Study Results.

“The findings of brain tumors (gliomas) and malignant schwann cell tumors of the heart in the NTP study, as well as DNA damage in brain cells, present a major public health concern because these occurred in the same types of cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users,” stated Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, the National Institutes of Health toxicologist who lead the NTP study design and senior advisor to the Environmental Health Trust. “For children the cancer risks may be greater than that for adults because of greater penetration and absorption of cell phone radiation in the brains of children and because the developing nervous system of children is more susceptible to tissue-damaging agents. Based on this new information, regulatory agencies need to make strong recommendations for consumers to take precautionary measures and avoid close contact with their cell phones, and especially limit or avoid use of cell phones by children.”

The AAP has updated their Healthy Children Webpage on Cell Phones entitled Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know. The webpagereiterated children’s unique vulnerability to cell phone radiation stating, “Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices' possible effect on large adults—not children. Children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.”

The AAP issued the following cell phone safety tips specifically to reduce exposure to wireless radiation:

Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.

When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.

Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.

Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level.

Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.

Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.

If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It's better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.

Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.

Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

“Even though the cell phone manual contains specific instructions that say do not carry the phone next to the body, the US government does not publicize this information nor mandate companies inform the public, leaving most people unaware of potential hazards, unwittingly allowing their young children to play with them like toys,” stated Devra Davis MPH, PhD, president of the Environmental Health Trust pointing to the Berkeley Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance being challenged in court this month.

In 2012, the AAP published Pediatric Environmental Health, 3rd Edition recommending, “exposures can be reduced by encouraging children to use text messaging when possible, make only short and essential calls on cellular phones, use hands free kits and wired headsets and maintain the cellular phone an inch or more away from the head.”

Since 2012, the AAP has supported the Federal Cell Phone Right to Know Legislation and has written letters to the FCC calling on the federal government to review and strengthen radiation standards for wireless devices in an effort to protect children's health.